Presidents need to display diplomacy

IF there was ever any doubt about the matter, it is now abundantly clear that Seán Gallagher still feels aggrieved by the so-called Tweetgate controversy of seven years ago.

We must not, of course, blindly accept that the tweet read out on RTÉ was solely responsible for Mr Gallagher failing to win the Presidential election. The reality is that his campaign was already beginning to unravel by that stage and continued to do so in the following days.

Moreover, it was not so much the contents of the fake tweet that caused an issue: it was the response that the fake tweet provoked from Mr Gallagher which lingered in the minds of voters – already discomfited by questions over his business dealings and links to Fianna Fáil.

Yet even allowing for the fact that he feels hard done-by, he has shown poor judgment by making ill-advised comparisons about RTÉ’s response to his complaints.

First of all, he invoked Catholic Church outrages involving the rape and abuse of thousands of children. Now he has made reference to the HSE’s shocking failures over the cervical cancer scandal.

Granted, Mr Gallagher didn’t go so far as to compare himself to the victims of these grave injustices. But there is no question that he strayed into extremely dangerous territory with his remarks. Accordingly, members of the voting public are bound to ask whether someone with an ability to make such injudicious comments is really the most suitable individual to serve as Uachtarán na Héireann.

Not, it seems, that Seán Gallagher has the monopoly on unwise remarks in the context of this particular election.

It is quite right for Joan Freeman to point out that people can change their minds. After all, we all know how Michael D Higgins had second thoughts regarding his pledge to only serve a single term in the Áras. The significant thing here, though, is that Senator Freeman previously gave quite specific reasons why she wouldn’t be a suitable candidate for the Presidency.

Speaking at the start of the year, she clearly stated that holding the position wouldn’t allow her ‘to pursue my vocation and campaign for mental health improvements’.

Given where we are now, though, it begs one very obvious question: if Joan Freeman didn’t think she was a suitable candidate a mere nine months ago, what exactly has changed her mind in the meantime?